Scientists And Public Officials Must Pursue Collaboration To Set Research Priorities

Should scientists assume responsibility for proposing a national agenda for science? It is not easy to take a stand against priority-setting and the kind of rational, systematic analysis the notion implies. But recent proposals that call on the scientific community to "get its act together" and unite behind a single set of research priorities raise serious doubts about its wisdom. At the same time, with scientists and policymakers increasingly concerned about how to find funds for the growing list of "megaprojects" begun by the Reagan administration, the business of setting priorities is becoming increasingly urgent. For example, presidential science adviser D. Allan Bromley has indicated that his office intends to establish a priority-setting process, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is reported to be looking at research in a more comprehensive fashion than it ever has before. Behind the various proposals that have been under discussion in science policy circles for the past 18 months - since National Academy of Sciences president Frank Press raised the matter in an April 1988 address to NAS (The Scientist, May 30, 1988) - is the belief that the scientific community can use the analytic methods of science itself to make allocation decisions across disciplines, and that these decisions, made by scientists and transmitted to government, would be better (that is, more "rational and less political") than those made now under the federal budget process. Does this idea make sense? The character of the discussions themselves suggests some potential difficulties. The current discussions of priority-setting have roots in an analogous debate that took place in the early 1960s, stimulated by Alvin Weinberg's famous paper, "Criteria for Scientific Choice." It is far from coincidental that then, as now, the major choice at issue was in so-called Big Science. In both instances, it relates to the proposed construction of the next generation particle accelerator. In the 1960s it was the 20 GeV syncrotron around which Fermilab was eventually established; in the current case it is the Superconducting Supercollider, or SSC. It is also not coincidental that the most vocal proponents of priority-setting are not those whose projects are favored in the existing system. High-energy physicists, in other words, have not led the call. Indeed, they were not even represented in the "committee of councilors" that guided the recent NAS study of priority-setting. The physicists' success in tapping the federal purse (emulated to some extent recently by the molecular geneticists) is at the center of the issue. Most of those involved in the priority-setting discussions have stopped short of saying this directly - although some have come close. As John Dutton and Lawson Crowe (an earth scientist and a philosopher) put it in a recent article in American Scientist (76:599-603, 1988), "Vigorous advocacy for particular disciplinary interests has evidently confused decision-makers in both the administration and Congress and has made the choice among competing initiatives more difficult." Underlying the debate over priority-setting, then, is the sense in the scientific community that large expenditures in one area of science make it more difficult for other disciplines to get their share of the pie - that is, that research funding is a zero-sum game. Is this so? In terms of the formal budget process, the answer is no. Despite the zero-sum character of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law, which sets limits on the federal deficit, and the fact that the federal budget as a whole is severely constrained, the various pieces of basic research compete against one another only indirectly, through the larger programs, agencies, budget functions, and appropriations bills of which they are part. At the same time, however, there is a strong belief among congressional science policy leaders that under present budgetary conditions, it is difficult to justify simultaneous funding of several large basic science initiatives, no matter how valuable each may be. The initiatives may be independent of one another in a budgetary sense, but they are still viewed by many outside of the scientific community as related activities. This perception needs to be addressed, and the way in which the scientific community participates in priority-setting examined. Most of the discussion, however - from Weinberg and his critics, to Dutton and Crowe, to NAS' recent report - has been about the criteria that should be used in such a decision process. Too little attention has been paid to other important questions raised by the proposals. Advocates of priority-setting have suggested that it is important for the scientific community to pre-sent a unified appearance to the outside world. But who can speak authoritatively on behalf of the scientific community? A committee of NAS? The scientific associations? (If so, which?) The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)? This is not a trivial matter. Whichever body conducts the priority-setting exercise has to be broadly accepted in all fields of science, and legitimate and powerful enough to stand behind what are bound to be unpopular choices. Secondly, who would use the results of the priority-setting process, and how? In the executive branch, the organizations in the best position to use a coordinated set of priorities are OMB and OSTP. Presumably, they would use these priorities in formulating the president's budget. But OSTP's role in budget-making is advisory, and even OMB's power is not unlimited. The art of bureaucratic politics is well-practiced in Washington, and agencies can and frequently do end-run OMB's decisions, either through the president or through Congress. More to the point, any set of coordinated priorities produced by the scientific community not only would have to be incorporated into the president's budget, but also would have to be accepted by Congress. Congress, of course, has its own approach to setting priorities. By the time any budget for science has been pulled apart by function in the budget committees, by agency in the legislative committees, and by appropriations bill in the appropriations committees (in both House and Senate at each of these levels) and reassembled among the various other programs of veterans' benefits, sewage treatment grants, and agricultural price supports, its internal priorities will be unrecognizable. Finally, what kinds of outcomes might a scientific priority-setting process yield? One thing is certain: The fields or initiatives given low priority would attract more notice than those given high priority. Interdisciplinary groups of scientists of-ten do agree on areas in each other's fields that are exciting and deserve more support. Regardless of how the overall, coordinated set of priorities was received, the recommendations of low priority would give strong ammunition to those in Congress and here looking for opportunities to cut the budget. Since the research programs of the various agencies are not part of a single appropriation, there is no reason to expect that the cuts in some science programs would make more money available for others. The result is likely to be reductions in the low priority areas but without corresponding increases in those of high priority. Despite these concerns, there is much to be said for modifying the budget process so that it gives greater weight to the kinds of considerations that NAS, Weinberg, Dutton and Crowe, and others have raised. Criteria such as technological merit (relevance to technological development), scientific merit (utility for other disciplines), and social merit (relevance to human welfare and values) ought to be part of the process by which new initiatives are evaluated. Two things need to be borne in mind, however: (1) that priority-setting is an integral part of the regular budget process and not something to be done internally by the scientific community and then handed on to government; and (2) that the community should not expect too much from it. OMB and OSTP should not be seen as passive recipients of a set of priorities generated within the scientific community. Rather, they and the federal agencies they oversee should be the locus of priority-setting, using the advice and counsel of a wide spectrum of the scientific community in their deliberations. The process must be a collaborative one. OMB has the power to shape the budget, but priorities for research are only a small part of its responsibilities. OSTP has the access to outside expertise and the focus on science, but its role in the budget process is subordinate to OMB. The arrangement is highly sensitive to the desire of the OSTP director to participate and his or her negotiating skills. Allan Bromley's interest in budgeting, his long-standing and strong connections to the scientific community (for example, as a past president and chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), and his initial steps toward involving OSTP in budgeting give cause for optimism in this regard. At the same time, advocates of systematic priority-setting and those who may be called on to advise in the process need to recognize that any such rational analysis is just one element of the picture. Such analysis may influence the process, but it does not determine priorities. Other factors and other voices will and should be heard. Political criteria are not a contaminant in the allocation of public resources for research; they are absolutely essential to the democratic process and to the long-run effective functioning of the system. Setting priorities across fields of science is a job not just for scientists, but for society as a whole. Albert H. Teich is acting director for Science and Policy Programs at AAAS.

Scientists And Public Officials Must Pursue Collaboration To Set Research Priorities

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of